Bolt Action VS Chain Of Command

[DaveyJJ]

Just to note that 15mm single based figure are great in CoC games.

[Too Bo Coo]

i bought BA ,read it and sold it without playing it,world war 40K springs to mind
CoC have played and enjoyed and want to play more

read into that version of my humblest of opinions what you will

Totally agree.

[AzSteven]

I have played both, and find I prefer Bolt Action, especially in its 2nd Edition incarnation - that pretty much replaced most of the House Rules we were using.  It makes for a faster game, and while its not a simulation I find (with the right players) it makes a good wargame.

Having said that, I don't hate CoC at all, and find it to be playable as well.

I did recently get introduced to a game titled 5 Men at Kursk that I enjoyed immensely.  Smaller scope than either BA or CoC, but quite fun.

[grant]

I think Lardy Rich and Fat Bloke Sawyer should have a charity boxing match and settle this matter once and for all.

[Emporium]

Seconded 

I think Lardy Rich and Fat Bloke Sawyer should have a charity boxing match and settle this matter once and for all.

[Vindice]

I notice our Lardy friend (say hi to the M&M cast for me  ) mentioned cross of iron. I've only ever seen it played once using 15mm armour. Is that the correct scale and idea ?

I love Cross of Iron and I sort of.defaulted to 15mm because I wanted a shedload of tanks.on the table.  I keep meaning to pick up the BA starter.box and try it in 28mm

[mellis1644]

I like Cross of Iron as well but infantry vs. Infantry can feel a little odd at close range - as they can't kill each other without multiple actions. One house rule we tried is that an extra (single) kill die just keeps being rolled as long as it hits if under 12" in range when shooting infantry. It makes things even more random and deadly at close ranges for infantry.

But Cross of Iron is for much bigger games than either BA or CoC.

[mweaver]

AzSteven: "I did recently get introduced to a game titled 5 Men at Kursk that I enjoyed immensely.  Smaller scope than either BA or CoC, but quite fun."

Looked this rules set up after reading your post, AzSteven, and it sounds more like I am looking for in a WWII skirmish game (I like skirmish games with a strong campaign element where you can see your surviving soldiers develop over time - Mordheim is a good example of this approach).  Would it be appropriate to ask more about this game here, or should I start a separate thread?

-Michael

[Sunjester]

I can't say I found that a huge problem at all, but then i play a lot of TFL games and Chain of Command is a vast improvement on the layout of some of the older rules!
I found the series of introductory videos to be a great help getting started https://www.youtube.com/user/toofatlardies/videos

[Rich H]

It's very much written to read from start to finish and it does sort of make sense...  most of the time.

The TFL games have a serious following and the games are great once you get your head around them but initially they can be a steep learning curve which never quite levels out...

CofC this evening: Barbarossa
I'm going to take some hopeless Russians and jam in a T28   It'll probably die to a door knocker in phase 3.

[SteveBurt]

I didn't have a problem reading and understanding the rules. Got a few things wrong in the first game, but that's normal.
I wouldn't say the rules are badly laid out or particularly hard to find stuff in. Not perfect, but perfectly OK. 
I didn't need to look at the videos to figure out how to play, but then again, I've been reading wargame rules for almost 50 years.

[grant]

If you need a series of introductory videos to learn how to play the game then that speaks volumes.

Functional literacy is declining; sometimes people learn in different ways and videos are just another way in these changing times.

[Lardy Rich]

Well, I suppose you can view the glass as half full or half empty.  The reason we produce videos for our games is because people tell us they find them helpful.  When we write the rules, every key point has not just the written rule, but also an illustration and an example to clarify it.  The chief reason is that English is an imperfect language and however one writes something people can read an alternative meaning into it. We try to cover all bases to help make things clear.  We also have a forum and a yahoo group where less experienced players can get advice from those with more games under their belt. 

You could argue that means the rules are badly written, or you could come to the conclusion that we provide the best support that we can. It's up to you.

Cheers

Rich

[Too Bo Coo]

I love the idea of using a video to help clarify rules.  I dont see this as a downside, and maybe even helps more if watched before reading.  When something comes up on the page, one has already seen Rich explain it on the video giving greater context.  Hot to play videos are a staple of the boardgame hobby, where one can argue that the average rules are far more simple than the games we all prefer, so I dont see the videos as a reflection of complexity. Just my 2 euro cents.

[Lardy Rich]

"Prickly" is not something I particularly get, and certainly not in this instance.  

With fifteen years experience of writing and publishing rules, I have always attempted to make each set we produce better than the last when it comes to presentation and clarity.   This has never involved pretending that we are perfect and that what we produce does not have issues.

That said, you may be interested to know that each time we produce the final document for the printer we are very keen to improve on last time.  Getting professional proof readers involved is pointless as they have absolutely no idea what wargaming is about.  We have got involved with teams of lawyers, professional writers, technical writers and just about anyone you can think of to try to "get it right first time".  

All that happens is that we get 50% of people who get the whole thing first time, 25% who het 95% of it and 25% who are utterly all at sea.  Each time it is a different set of people filling those groups, but there is a real consistency in that however we write things, some people just won't get it.

As we have seen from this thread, I think much is about what preconceived ideas people have a bout a rule set.  Several people have stated here that they have had no issues with the wording, but then they have also stated that they are 'regular' Lardy rule players.  That suggests to me that we are comfortable with stuff which fits patterns we are used to working with.          

I also think that if you want a set of rules which are nuanced and sophisticated, then you need to expect to go through a learning curve when you meet them.  What I attempt to do is to make that learning curve as shallow as possible by providing whatever support I can, including videos.

I speak to a lot of game designers and this is the one issue that all of us have thrown at us (Barkerese anyone?) and we all feel the same way.  We wrote it as well as we could.  Equally, we all want to get it better next time.  

Cheers

Rich